jmgrosen

111 ms·

1.
The Breathing Cards(pbat.ch)
4 points by jmgrosen 2y ago|0 comments
2.
WAM BAM JAM 2024 – Winners and Instruments(wambamjam.recurse.com)
2 points by jmgrosen 2y ago|0 comments
3.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
Even at 23mph, a pedestrian's chance of death in a collision, in the US over the years 1994-1998, was only 10%: https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-seve... I don't mean to imply that that is a
4.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
Especially the Field model!
5.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
given the crackpot proofs received by coq-club, i imagine it would indeed
6.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
are there any documented cases of this actually happening in the wild?
7.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
Thank you for the self-promotion, Scheme for Max looks like something I’ve been wishing for for a long time!
8.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
Use an existential type, usually called Some in Haskell: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/some-1.0.5/docs/Data-Som... The implementation of this type one has in their head (a GADT) adds a boxing overhead,
9.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
yes: https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/130136/The%20... (sorry for lack of details in my post, on mobile)
10.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
No, it’s not—-they’re passing in a “node”, not a list, which always contains both a head element and a (nullable) tail pointer. That’s why it can’t separate the head in the case of size one: the node must maintain a non-null head.
11.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
Some of you may enjoy this fantastic recent paper on how to win both the comprehension benefits of splitting lexer and parser AND the performance benefits of fusing them: https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jdy22/papers/fl
12.
by jmgrosen 3y ago
This is absolutely ridiculous. I love it.
13.
by jmgrosen 4y ago
I think more like 5.5 minutes: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=300+nautical+miles+%2F+...
14.
by jmgrosen 4y ago
The second page starts the "FULL PRESCRIBING INFORMATION"; the body weight quote above comes from section 12.3 of it and there is no mention of a weight exclusion in the discussion of the clinical studies in section 14. AFAIK, &qu
15.
by jmgrosen 5y ago
Very cool! Just a random thing I noticed reading through [1]: you might have a bug in how you calculate the magnitudes of the signals? When you assign the output of the low-pass filters on the high frequency to the input of the magnitude ap
16.
MIT Graduate Student Union(mitgsu.org)
9 points by jmgrosen 5y ago|0 comments
17.
by jmgrosen 6y ago
Not sure whether I'd prefer to be Bond, or a pirate: archery, fencing, pistol, and sailing.
18.
by jmgrosen 6y ago
I worked the polls in Allegheny, and while the broad strokes are similar to what you described, there are definitely a few differences: - Most people fill out their ballot on paper with a pen, but a voting machine is also available to gener
19.
by jmgrosen 6y ago
It appears so! https://github.com/ms-jpq/gay/blob/95129960bc94f017648b93944...
20.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
Well, I will defer to your judgment! I’m by no means a type theory person. My understanding was that these features are how quotients are managed to be implemented. But perhaps that is wrong.
21.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
My understanding is that this shows how vanilla Coq still can’t encode quotients well. This project relies on a PR [0] that breaks term normalization, which makes it highly unlikely it will be merged. My understanding is that Lean’s imple
22.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
It does say that multiple times: > It is believed that some of the crowd control devices are capable of emitting electric shocks in a bid to neutralise any perceived threat... > The control weapons, which potentially have the ability
23.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
The wonders of Unicode: "Superscript One" has codepoint U+00B9.
24.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
It all seems very fast for me. I also see no problems with hint databases... maybe check the JS console for errors?
25.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
Well, perhaps they should upgrade it for the sake of the ~170 CVEs that have been published against Java 1.8.0_60? https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list.php?vendor_id=... Sure, a lot of those probably don't app
26.
by jmgrosen 7y ago
Don't forget building 18! 54 on its side :)
27.
by jmgrosen 8y ago
Earth Day hack, from last year: http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2017/earth_day/ was left up for several days (not listed there, but I was around to see it up)
28.
by jmgrosen 8y ago
I don’t think that sort of hack would have been taken down any less quickly in the past. The only time dome hacks have lasted a while have been when they’re extremely tricky to take down. I have some further opinions about what you allude t
29.
by jmgrosen 8y ago
I’d have disagree. Have you seen Hackapult? http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2015/hackapult/ There are fewer hacks nowadays, and they’re usually less ambitious, but I would argue it’s for reasons other
30.
by jmgrosen 8y ago
Generally speaking, I think if you care enough about performance to write manual SIMD code, being a little more cumbersome is a tradeoff you’re willing to make.

More ›